JUDGMENT 1. - The instant income-tax appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "IT Act"), is directed against the order dated September 9, 2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench "3", Jaipur (for short, "Tribunal") and relates to assessment year 2006-07. 2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the instant appeal, are that the respondent-assessee derives income from the business of trading of gold and silver ornaments and is a partnership firm. A search was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on August 4, 2005 and during the course of search incriminating material was found including loose papers, note books and proceeding under section 153C of the Income-tax Act was initiated. 3. The Assessing Officer (for short, "AO"), on the material found, raised certain queries inter alia (i) the difference of unexplained stock of gold and silver found to the tune of Rs. 1,33,836 and (ii) source of the amount advanced to parties, totalling Rs. 6,43,053. Though explanation was offered by the assessee on the query raised by the Assessing Officer, however, the Assessing Officer was not satisfies and made an addition to the extent of Rs. 4,33,836 on account of unexplained stock so also made an addition of Rs. 6,43,053 which is said to be the amount advanced by the assessee to the debtors and not proved. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short, "CIT(A)") who considered the issue and in so far as the addition of (i) unexplained stock is concerned, was satisfied with the explanation that in the search, stock of another sister concern was found and also the fact that the stock contained "dora, lakh, chapadi, moti stones" etc. and finding the same to be explained, deleted the addition. In so far as the amount advanced is concerned, the same was also deleted on the premise that the same was not advanced rather the assessee had sold the ornaments and the amount remained outstanding against those persons/traders and the assessee also filed affidavits which confirmed the fact that they had purchased the jewellery (ornaments) from the assessee and paid the amount subsequently and on account of this explanation, deleted this addition as well. 5. 5. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal who also upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), hence this appeal. 6. Counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of search though stock was found much more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer and to the extent the assessee was unable to explain by acceptable evidence only to that extent, the addition was made. He further contended that there was no explanation at the time of search that the stock related to sister concern and this was merely a claim without evidence. He further contended that whatever stock was found of the sister concern, namely ; Rajendra Prasad Narendra Kumar was stock of the said concern and there was no concern or connection of the assessee with M/s. Rajendra Prasad Narendra Kumar. He thus contended that this claim is an afterthought as none of the partners conveyed this fact and the claim being even without any material or evidence, ought not to have Been accepted by the appellate authorities. In so far as the claim with regard to the advance is concerned, no adequate explanation was offered at the time of assessment and even details were not made available of the persons. He further contended that these were noting in diaries and not properly recorded in the books of account and since the assessee failed to provide source of the amount advanced as well as the sale bills, the amount was rightly added and both the appellate authorities have relied upon the material which was not before the Assessing Officer. He thus contended that on both the issues, substantial question of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal and requires consideration. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the Revenue and also perused the impugned order as also the other material available on record. 8. In our view, no substantial question of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In so far as the addition of Rs. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the Revenue and also perused the impugned order as also the other material available on record. 8. In our view, no substantial question of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In so far as the addition of Rs. 4,33,836, which is said to be on account of the alleged excess stock found at the time of search is concerned, both the appellate authorities have gone into the issue elaborately and have come to the conclusion that the sister concern, namely ; M/s. Rajendra Prasad Narendra Kumar is closely related with the partners and there was common business of both the concerns and though the shops are at a distance but the distance between he two concerns is about 100 meters only. The claim that both the concerns being closely related, was proved on the basis of the material found during course of search that the assessee was newly constituted and M/s. Rajendra Prasad Narendra Kumar being an old concern, goods were being Transferred from M/s. Rajendra Prasad Narendra Kumar and vice versa to the present assessee and during the course of search itself, the partners n question No. 6 specifically asserted that the stock of M/s. Rajendra Prasad Narendra Kumar is also available at the premises of M/s. N.G. Jewellers (assessee). It is also admitted that silver items to the extent of 15.5 kgs. pertaining to stock of M/s. Rajendra Prasad Narendra Kumar was lying at the residence of the partners of the assessee firm at the time of search and on the, same material, this was held to be explained. It has also come on record that stock to this extent was found short at the time of survey simultaneously held at the business premises of Rajendra Prasad Narendra Kumar. Thus, on the said fact that the items used to be exchanged between the two sister concerns and admittedly proved, in our view, this being essentially a finding of fact based on the material available on record, no substantial question of law can be said to arise out of this addition. 9. In so far as the addition relating to Rs. 9. In so far as the addition relating to Rs. 6,43,053 is concerned, the assessee was able to prove on the basis of books of account that it had sold goods (ornaments) to Mukhram Vijendra Patel, Village Chiraval Gujar ; Shiv Lal Gujar, Moraka ; Ghansi Patel, Bamanpura ; Karari Singh, Shish Ram Patel, Moraka and part payment was received at the time of sale and the remaining payment was received later on and this happens in a case of business that as and when convenient when the parties are known, some amount is received in advance and balance even later on. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee also furnished affidavits of the above persons where they asserted that they had purchased jewellery from the assessee and paid the amount subsequently and even they had confirmed that no amount was outstanding as on the date of search. It is a finding of fact that the Assessing Officer did not call upon the persons who had filed affidavits. It is also a finding of fact that the statements of two persons, namely; Ghasi Ram and Karan Singh were later on recorded by the Assessing Officer wherein they stated that they had paid the amount prior to the search. When admittedly all these persons have been found to have purchased goods from the assessee and adequate material was placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal has analysed the material based on the finding of fact and in our view, this being essentially a finding of fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise out of this addition as well. 10. In view of the discussion made herein above, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal so as to call for interference by this court. 11. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed in limine. *******